Letters to the Editor
-
Relying on willful ignorance
The troll is willfully ignoring the fact that the topic in question is whether the President has the right to ignore the will of Congress and the people and wage war of his own accord. The Contstitution states clearly that he does not. A RW shill asserts that he does. The particular phrase the RW shill used to make the point is irrelevant. As is the troll's opinion. We will leave the namecalling and general defects of character displayed by the troll for another thread.
-
@ Jack
And who the hell are you, if I may ask? Not half so smart or distinguished as you let on, I'll wager. Have you anything substantive to contribute, or would dropping your fans be too much of an indignity in present company? Which, I grant you, is a polite way of saying put up or shut up, not that I expect you'll do either....
-
@Jack
You truly are a moron if you don't think that the ideological ideas out in the culture affect judges. I mean, an absolute, mind-numbing, beyond words cretin of the first order.
This has been studied extensively for over a century in law schools. It's trivially true - Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. School Board, the interstate commerce clause cases in the 20's and 30's, Rove v. Wade. Those are just the obvious, off the top of my head, celebrity cases.
They may not listen to Greenwald and the other pundits directly; they won't cite them in cases; but the go to parties with friends who do. They get a feel what will produce approbation from their peers, and the ideas they here talking to spouses, friends, children, and parents will all form the context in which they interpret cases.
If you believe that judges are like mathematicians closely parsing formal structure on important issues, instead of like politicians attempting to formulate policy at the constitutional level, you sir are living in a bubble, not unlike that of our current leadership. Unbelievable the naive bullshit that fools think they can sling.
-
Dirks
The troll is willfully ignoring the fact that the topic in question is whether the President has the right to ignore the will of Congress and the people and wage war of his own accord. The Contstitution states clearly that he does not. A RW shill asserts that he does.
I don't agree with your assessment of the topic or your interpretation of Goldfarb's words. I think you and Glenn have completely missed the mark.
A closer inspection of Goldfarb's quote:
True enough, but they sought an energetic executive with near dictatorial power in pursuing foreign policy and war. So no, the Constitution does not put Congress on an equal footing with the executive in matters of national security.
I'm interpreting Goldfarb's words to mean that Article II gives the President "near dictatorial power" in pursuing war once it has been declared. This is true. As Commander-in-Chief, the President calls the shots once war has been declared by Congress, which, if you'll recall, it was.
Read in that light, Goldfarb is right. Just as the President is not on equal footing with Congress in declaring war, Congress is not on equal footing with the President in pursuing war. If Goldfarb had used the word "declaring" in lieu of "pursuing", then I could see where Greenwald is coming from. But Goldfarb chose his words wisely, a lesson perhaps a few others could stand to learn.
-
@Jack
I'm interpreting Goldfarb's words to mean that Article II gives the President "near dictatorial power" in pursuing war once it has been declared. This is true.
Bullshit. Utter tripe. We don't even have to go to the Federalist papers for this one.
Article II. Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States...
Article I. Section 8. The Congress shall have power to ..
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Haven't read the Constitution lately, have ya Jack? Where in the power to be top general does "near dictatorial" come into play? Or does the AG have "near dictatorial" powers to prosecute crimes? Does the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have "near dictatorial" power over the military? It's absolutely asinine to assert that C-in-C implies anything like "near dictatorial" powers.
-
thanks to Sysprog and Desert Sun
for the quotes and links, and to ktwdawk for the mention of Marcus Aurelius...
Anyone wishing to find Meditations immediately-- without having to make a retail visit-- can find it online, too:
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?num=2680
-
sigh.....
To steal a phrase from another context....
The army serves at the pleasure of the Congress
From article 1:
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;